Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Ubuntu is a question and answer site for Ubuntu users and developers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In Is a 40GB SSD practical to use for ' / ' Jorge describes how he symlinks directories in his /home that would benefit from being on an SSD. The directories he names are

  • ~/.cache
  • ~/.config
  • ~/.gconf

I know how to make the symlinks. What I am asking for is if this is a good list of directories in /home that benefits from being on an SSD? I figure that good items on such a list are files that are read often. The reason for asking this is that I cannot fit all of /home on the SSD but I still want to get as much performance out of the SSD as possible.

share|improve this question
1  
The write thing is a myth on modern SSDs, Intel's are rated for like 57 straight years of writing or something sick like that. –  Jorge Castro Jul 8 '11 at 12:31
    
@JorgeCastro Could you please provide a link? –  N.N. Jul 8 '11 at 12:36
2  
Not handy, somewhere in here, the SSD guides are top notch - anandtech.com/tag/storage –  Jorge Castro Jul 8 '11 at 12:44
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 11 down vote accepted

Here's a list of other things that might be useful (I've made this a wiki post so anyone can add to it):

  • .gconfd abd .gconf - GNOME configuration files
  • .gegl-0.0 – file for GIMP
  • .gimp-2.6 – files for GIMP
  • .gnome2 – used by some GNOME 2 applications
  • .gvfs – data folder for the GNOME virtual filesystem
  • .local – user specific data. You will lose the Nautilus Trash functionality if this directory is put on a different partition.
  • .macromedia – files for flash
  • .mozilla – where all your Mozilla Firefox cache is
  • .thumbnails – thumbnails for pictures, videos, etc (used by Nautilus)
  • .thunderbird – where all your Mozilla Thunderbird cache is
  • .cache - temporty cache files for browsers and other programs.
  • .config - config files for programs
  • .thumbnails - File thumbnails
share|improve this answer
    
Be careful with .local. Nautilus won't like having it on a different partition and you'll lose the Trash feature. –  Richard Ayotte Mar 8 '12 at 21:15
add comment

I would put everything on the SSD, provided that it's a modern SSD (i.e. fast and doesn't suffer from poor write-leveling), and provided that everything fits.

The latency improvement is really something.

share|improve this answer
    
What would you do if some things don't fit? In my case I've got music and videos that won't fit. –  N.N. Jul 8 '11 at 12:40
1  
@NN You should mention that in the question that you don't have room to fit everything, then it'll be clear why you only want to symlink certain things. –  Jorge Castro Jul 8 '11 at 14:19
    
@JorgeCastro I agree. Done! –  N.N. Jul 8 '11 at 14:30
    
If have / and /home on the SSD, and then linked the big directories to a directory on the harddisk. Music, Videos, Downloads etc. –  elmicha Jul 8 '11 at 19:37
    
Yeah, videos/music that don't fit ought to go to a large rotational HDD. My point is that SSDs excel at situations where you have large numbers of small files, because of incredibly fast seeks. And /home tends to have thousands of small files in all those dotted directories. –  Marius Gedminas Jul 19 '11 at 19:49
show 1 more comment

I would just have the root directory (/) as SSD. Keep /home on a HDD (since in my experience, it can take -loads- of room). Also the /boot on the SSD, if you are going to make separate partitions. That way you have the loading time benefits of SSD. That's my opinion.

if you really wanted to use the SSD for home, I would put the configuration folders on there (the /.whatever) folders, to speed up configuration loading. It wouldn't be as fast as loading the entire program from SSD, but it's an improvement nonetheless. I don't know how to map certain elements of /home to the SSD however, but the mount command comes to mind

share|improve this answer
    
I'm afraid that this is not an answer to the question. The question is what benefits from being on an SSD in /home? –  N.N. Jul 8 '11 at 14:19
    
Oops sorry, got carried away. Edited it for relevance :) –  Conor Rynne Jul 8 '11 at 14:31
    
Are you thinking of any configuration files in particular? The size of all hidden directories in my /home is 297 GB. The size of all hidden directories in my /home except for the hidden directory links .ecryptfs and .Private is 1 GB. –  N.N. Jul 8 '11 at 14:40
    
in most cases yes, although given the size of your configuration files (are all your hidden files configuration ones??) I would limit it to the programs you use most, and the .gnome* ones, as well as .config and .cache as you would probably see the most effect from these –  Conor Rynne Jul 8 '11 at 15:03
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.